Essay about The Passing of the Crown by Shakespeare's Henries

This speech occurs towards the end of the play and does not make a positive impression on the newly-virtuous Hal, but in previous moments the Prince seems at least to play along with Falstaff's definition of honor being, in essence, an empty value belonging only to the dead. Falstaff's concept of honor shapes Hal's personality early in the play when he has not yet acquiesced to his royal role as heir apparent, but the question that is raised in the early, rakehell descriptions of Hal is the possibility that he is merely playing a role and ingratiating himself superficially with Falstaff. This seems likely, increasingly so as the play goes on, as Hal tells his father that he will “hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord,/ Be more myself,” indicating that there is perhaps more to Hal’s sense of honor and duty than appearance belies (3.2.92-93). However, whether Hal is playacting or being true to himself in his early interactions with Falstaff, there is no doubt that the general populace and the King in particular believe that Hal has no honor to speak of, and is in effect living Falstaff's notion of the “true” nature of honor.

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

Upon Richard's return to England, he learns of the events that had transpired in his absence. At first his own arrogance allows him to believe that since it is his God given right to rule as King, he will be protected. But then just as quickly, Richard's arrogance turns into despair upon the realization that Henry has gained support of the nobles and the people of England. Henry and Richard finally meet at Ramparts Castle leading to the climax of the play. Henry demands retribution for the allocation of his families' possessions and

Raising a child is always a challenging and time-consuming task, and raising a prince is even more difficult. Henry puts his leadership aside to focus his efforts upon preventing Prince Hal from absolute corruption or even betrayal. Hal enjoys the company of an unruly thief, the drunkard John Falstaff, as well as several other less respectable persons. Henry is more realistic and rational than Richard, and he is able to see that his position is not a good one. He may fear that he is a bad example for his son, for he too was a robber when he stole the throne. He fears that his son will ruin his image as king or even assist in overthrowing him;

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Indeed, very few people have this quality, the playwright William Shakespeare being one of them. In many of his plays, "Henry IV, Part One" among them, Shakespeare juxtaposes different worldviews, ideologies, and even environments. His characters usually provide a clear example of a split among them in one of many perspectives. One of his characters in "Henry IV"—Falstaff—is first seen as an endearing, uproariously funny scoundrel and later reveals himself more of a lowlife with his view of honor—he seems

Although King Henry and Falstaff are extremely different characters, both do act as father figures in Hal’s life with Falstaff as a surrogate father and King Henry as Hal’s birth father. With King Henry, this fatherly relationship emerges as one of blindly scolding and ordering around his son, an example being when the King criticizes Hal’s friends, “rude society” (3.2.14). The relationship with Hal and his surrogate father, Falstaff, though is much more relaxed with Falstaff teasing Hal, by touching on Hal’s slight insecurity of taking care of his princely duties, calling Hal “true prince” (2.4.106). Although both these relationships are very different in how relaxed they are, there is a similarity of King Henry and Falstaff acting as fatherly figures in Hal’s life.

Hal, assuming that it is about his interactions at the Tavern, because royalty usually does not “hang out” with common folk, is hesitant to go. Falstaff then sets a mock rehearsal to prepare Hal for his meet up. When the mock audition nears an end the immersion is broken as Falstaff question if he and Hal would still be friends and not banish him from his presence, Hal speaks “I do. I will.” the importance of this, is that when Hal is declared king, he will no longer be friends with Falstaff. He will terminate any friendship that does not seem fit with the courts. This scene is a key point which shows that Hal is not just Hal, but a Prince, who is conscious of his actions and mistakes; he knows fully well the responsibility and power which he has over the country. A boy who is changing to a man, a leader of men, and this will become more apparent as the play continues

Two of the important characters in Shakespeare’s Henry V are King Henry V, and the Dauphin. Henry V is the ruling monarch of England who, in the previous plays of the tetralogy, was presented as a riotous youth and troublemaker. This former life ultimately becomes a preparation for his sovereignty, and his earlier experiences of immaturity and unprincipled living allow him to understand his common subjects and to measure his own sense of worth by their lack of honorable qualities. With the ascension to the throne, the rowdiness of the king vanishes entirely and he promises his subjects that his life of wild living ended with his father’s death, and he is now a completely reformed person altogether. The main purpose of Henry V is to convey the idea that King Henry represents in all aspects the model of the ideal Christian ruler. Various scenes depict his religious nature, his mercy, pity, and compassion, his absolute sense of justice, his administrative skill, his fighting ability, his instinctive nobility, his ability to connect with the common class of soldiers and people, his self-discipline, evenness of temper, complete courtesy, and finally his role as a romantic lover in the suit of Princess Katharine’s hand in marriage.

To examine Shakespeare’s exploration of identity as a means of control, it is important to understand what all constitutes each character’s identity. In the case of Henry, for one, it is apparent that the actions of his past alter his perceived identity throughout the play. Before Henry speaks his first lines in the play, the Bishop of Ely calls Henry a “true lover of the holy Church,” to which the Archbishop of Canterbury replies, “The courses of [Henry’s] youth promised it not” (1.1.23-24). This reckless reputation follows Henry further into the play when an ambassador from France delivers a message to Henry from the Dauphin: “…the prince our master says that you savor too much of your youth and bids you to be advised there’s naught in France that can be with a nimble galliard won: you cannot revel into dukedoms there” (1.2.250-254). Along with this message, the Dauphin included a gift of tennis balls meant to further insult Henry. Even later in the play, after the English won the battle at Harfleur, the noble Frenchmen continue to underestimate Henry’s ability as a leader: “What a wretched and peevish fellow is this King of England, to mope with his fat-brained followers so far out of his knowledge” (3.8.120-122).

The question that Shakespeare raises throughout the series of Henry IV, Part I, Henry IV, Part II, and Henry V is that of whether Prince Hal (eventually King Henry V), is a true manifestation of an ideal ruler, and whether he is a rightful heir to his father’s ill-begotten throne. England is without a true king, being run by a ruler without the right of divine providence on his side– altogether, a very difficult situation for a young, inexperienced, and slightly delinquent Prince to take on. The task of proving himself a reliable Prince and a concerned ruler is of utmost importance to Hal, as he does not enjoy the mantle of divine right– perhaps by being an excellent ruler, Hal can make up for the

Falstaff’s soliloquy questioning the value of honour is an ironic contrast with how Hotspur and Hal regard honour. By now the contrast between their highly ordered morality and Falstaff’s own moral disorder is obvious. Falstaff’s inclusion at this point, when Hal has left his side and moved on, is necessary to point out the differing morality between the two, which was once so similar. Falstaff is of paramount importance to the sub-plot dealing with Hal’s decision between continuing his carefree lifestyle or maturing into the role he is destined to play as a respected prince and later king. This soliloquy continues the theme of another of Falstaff’s in Act 4 Scene 2, in which he is equally undisturbed by his amorality, and shows that his highest concern is for his own well being.

The relationship between Hal and Falstaff, however, is perplexing. Hal is either using Falstaff to serve his ends and when he does not need him anymore he totally discards him or he truly loves the man but lost all hope in reforming him. Prince Hal used to put up with Falstaff, covering him, paying his bills and tolerating his lies, but if this is the price that

William Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, composed during the last years of the 16th century, is as much as character study as it is a retelling of a moment in history. Though the play is titled for one king, it truly seems to revolve around the actions of the titular character's successor. Indeed, Henry IV is a story of the coming-of-age of Prince Hal and of the opposition that he must face in this evolution. This process gives narrative velocity to what is essentially a conflagration between two personality types. In Prince Hal, the audience is given a flawed but thoughtful individual. Equally flawed but more given over to action than thought is his former ally and now-nemesis, Hotspur. In the latter, Shakespeare offers a warrior and a man of action and in the former, the playwright shows a politician in his nascent stages of development. The contrast between them will drive the play's action.

A defining feature between these two men’s fate is Richard’s dependence on good fortune through divine intervention, whereas Henry and Machiavelli rely on free will, what they themselves can do to manipulate the situation. Richard calls upon God to defend him, thinking that he can manipulate God’s will to fit his desires, “angels fight, weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right” (III.ii pg 409) This idea of unearthly abilities that allow him to manipulate nature itself, even England is stupid and shows how incompetent he is. Compared to Henry in this play, he is someone who wants to serve England, not how England can serve them; in other words what you can do for your country. Machiavelli states that “so long as fortune varies, and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not”, Richard in all ways fills this statement, his reliance on fortune seals his fate in the end (Machiavelli 148). Shakespeare shows this antiquated idea to show how much England needed a change of leadership and rule, the end of medievalism and the rise of Machiavellianism.

           Shakespeare's plays beginning with Richard II and concluding with Henry V presents an interesting look at the role of a king. England's search for "the mirror of all Christian kings" provided the opportunity to explore the many facets of kingship showing the strengths and weaknesses of both the position and the men who filled that position. Through careful examination, Shakespeare develops the "king" as a physical, emotional, and psychological being. By presenting the strengths and weaknesses of these characteristics, Shakespeare presents a unified look at the concept of "kingship" and demonstrates that failure to achieve